Insights into the Meeting with Mr. Jeremy

     I had a wonderful and intense discussion with Mr. Jeremy one night, whom I met at a party Ingrid hosted for the entire group at Ivy Dene. His wife had been the Defense minister in Independent South Africa, and I was naturally intrigued by the men behind the women in power and started talking and clarifying my half-baked tidbits of knowledge on non-violence in general. Now, it may sound extremely strange that I started discussing non-violence with someone whose wife was the Minister of Defense. It sounds pretty counter-intuitive. But the conversation threw up some interesting insights. Now a basic principle of social resistance as I had always understood it was that of non-violence. Inundated with this concept from childhood, I was intensely excited and fascinated with Dr. Fosl’s engagement with non-violence. In class one day, she beautifully explained the meaning of “Satyagraha and clarified its meaning for me.” “Satya” in Sanskrit (the main language of India’s scriptures) meant Truth and “agraha” meant home. So basically Satyagraha meant the "home of the truth." As a concept applied to the principle of resistance, I think it meant the process of discerning the Truth. Dr. Fosl had also introduced us to this concept when she explained Bayard Rustin’s embrace of non-violence in her Social Movements’ class. In that class last fall, and especially in a talk organized commemorating the opening of the Bayard Rustin dormitory at the U of L, we had learnt the importance of non-violence as a tool of resistance. Anyway, back to the story, I questioned Jeremy about the totality of the concept. How could a State not use violence to maintain the democratic peace? Even if the state was totally peaceful, it needed to maintain an army to protect its principles and sustain its non-violent principles internally. While the principle of non-violence was totally acceptable in organizing a social movement, how could it form the basis for the organization of the state system? So was the principle possibly faulty in its formulation? While India had had a totally non-violent freedom struggle, thanks to Gandhi, this did not form the basis for the organization of the state. The Indian state did not fall short of aggressing against Bangladesh and repeatedly violently oppresses the indigenous people demanding secession. But once again, I do not think the Indian state is organized around non-violence, as this principle did not preclude it from possessing a nuclear weapon. So basically the principle of non-violence only preached a non-violent response to violence and aimed at building mental strength against an oppressor. Only, when it was universally embraced by all nations around the world, can the state totally renounce violence. Even then, it seems likely that some form of violence would be necessary to maintain order. I do not think non-violence is a totalizing, universal principle, but contextual. It was a principle to be embraced by all. I guess the principle has come to form one of the most successful organizing strategies of social movements. But the next step in the political process, when a newly liberated colonial state attempts to effectuate the principle has not yet been fully formulated. States join the other nation-states in the system of international relations and are forced to adopt strategies for survival, which always seems to preclude the renunciation of force. Of course, in theory, while nation-states have outlawed the use of force through the United Nations charter, which has sought to legitimate and constrain state behavior, no state has totally renounced its use of force. Jeremy always said, that when confronted with the use of force, non-violence meant desisting from the use of force and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. This was the prescription of the UN Charter too. Anyway, I think it is time for a definitive application of this principle in the organization of the state-system. This would probably eliminate the need for oppressive prison systems and all standing armies and possibly lead to a political “Utopia.”